MERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR 


801-809 G ST. N. W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 


ADDRESS OF 


SAMUEL GOMPERS. 


President American Federation of Labor, before the Arbitration Conference, 
held at Chicago, Ill., December 17, 1900, under the Auspices 


of the National Civic Federation. 


“And Esau said unto Jacob: ‘Feed me, I pray thee....’ 
And Jacob said: ‘‘Sell me this day thy birthright.’ 
Then Jacob gave Hsau bread and pottage of lentils and 
he did eat and drink, and rose up and went his way; 
thus Esau despised his birthright.’’ 
—Genesis, chap, 25. v. 30, 31, H. 


’ 


“Trojans, do not trust this horse, 

Whatever it may be, I fear the Greeks, 

Even when they bring us gifts.’’ 
~—Aeneid, Book II. 


PUBLISHED BY THE 
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR 
WASHINGTON, D. C. 


REDUCED: PRICELIST OF SUPREIE = 


CERTIFICATE OF AFFILIATION (CHARTER) with two English (German, Italian or 
Spanish) Manuals of Common Procedure, giving directions for opening and closing 


meetings, Installation of Officers, Initiation of Members, 


CHARTER OUTFIT 


etc 


ee eee eee eee ee wee eee eee ee 


A Charter Outfit consists of one set 0f Books—Ledger, Day Book, Minute Book, 
Treasurer’s Account Book, Treasurer’s Receipt Book, Secretary’s Order Book, one 
Seal, seven Constitutions, A. F. of L.; seven Certificates of Membership, Membership 
and Working Cards, one quire of Official Note Paper, one copy of the Official Pro- 
ceedings of Convention, and one copy of History of Trade Unions. 


SESl ) Peete ere rata aualle (sata aiieus ER Rer amen eenane tone $2.50 
L00=PaLe red SET Oise Fey. 6 seroma teeter sie es 1.25 
200-Pasee MEd SEM ie sc ois claternyelinvelateleters open 2D 
30 0=PAa le tle Oe ees wise clateteemiaioa obciseltoiteneier 3.00 
AVO=Paee sad SET yess pile aso lst ame mes we sy estan beg 3.50 
EM (Yee ays reat spurs. Ws y6 beat so Mir Aue mer mene Aleit sen rear: 4.00 
600s pase: SHEA er wits acu, ctoausntsrcie gakerele arse 4.50 
100-paeeDay,” BOOK Silas css es crenata 385 
Treasurers \ACeount 1 BOOKA. expects tenes 5 
Treasurer's, Receipt BOOK Ia. vote) sees vail) 
Secretany.s (Order?  Bookdis ca. sits ee .50 
IMATE ROOK. SMC AG anc a aile Sebabe) cetera We mene eit) 
ROL Oa LOB OOTE he eater te eeesieons cel ete keane erates .60 
Membership and Working Cards, per 100 2.00 
Official Letter Paper, with Seal, per 100. .50 
Official Note Paper, with Seal, per 100.. .40 
Oden Cards perce 0.0 ie erin ete cy cess at cle peta oe 1.09 
Tea velinw (Oacds pers (OZLCH alee -leolere « ee a. 
Manuals—English, German, Italian, or » 
SPanisny oon Woe ec ar eye anaes wr 25 
Beton oe for Membership, per 
(ei ais ced sa vot ints toil oie bay potent 
Certificates of Membership, per doz..... 
Union Labels, per 1,000, 75 cts.; 5,000, $3; 
MO AO ee apoio tats: tat ateaetses athe 1c foe oe 5.00 
Rolled gold Hight-hour Badges, each 50 
CHS TS TN COG Nia aye Rite dare ile ceuee tatanalied are mee 5.00 
BHight-hour Campaign Buttons, each 5 
Cus.; {pec doz. 40. cts) per a00.c a 2.00 
Constitution, American Federation of 
JRE] OLON bee RAG Pen atongel ALOK Ur DR nh ee Ose SMA cree Re ac se 5.00 
Honorable Withdrawal Cards, per doz... .5v 
LABOR LITERATURE. 
HISTORY OF TRADE UNIONS—By Wm. 


Trant, M. oA.; with. @ sketch of the» Na- 
tional and International Unions of Ameri- 
cA, by Ps J; pMeGuire. “Per “copy, 10 “cts, 
doz., 75 cts.; 100, $5.00. 
PHILOSOPHY OF TRADE UNIONS—By Dyer 
: DY hum Perrcopy.i20e7) Coz. us ts) 100, 39. 
THE BIGHT-HOUR PRIMBDR. The Fact, 
Theory, and~the Argument—By George #. 
McNeill. Per copy, 5c.; doz., 50c.; 100, $4. 
THE EIGHT-HOUR WORKDAY. Its Inaugu- 
ration, Enforcement, and Influences-—By 
Samuel Gompers. Per copy, 5 cts.; d0oz., 
50 cts.;° 100; $4.00. 


THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPORTANCR | 


OF THE BIGHT-HOUR MOVEMENT—Bvy 
Geo. Gunton. Per copy,5c.; doz., 50c.; 100, $4. 

THE: (PHILOSPEY OF THM SIGH Te HouR 
MOVEMENT—By Lemuel Danryid. Per 
CODY, > etsier doz. 50 cts. "1100, 9 $40.00: 

UNION LABEL LAWS. A Digest. Per copy, $2. 

INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION. Consisting of:an 
Investigation and Report by a Competent 
Special Committee; Reports of Officers ana 
Committees; Action of A. F. of L. Conven- 
tion; the attitude of Organized Labor and 
Others Toward the Problem: a Glossary 
of Definitions, &e.; Labor’s Bill for Con- 
gressional Enactment. Per copy, 25 cts.; 
doz., $2.00; 100, $15.00. 


BUCKS’ STOVE AND RANGE COMPANY 
INJUNCTION SUIT AND CONTEMPT 
PROCEEDINGS. A Compliation of the-EHs- 
sential Features and Principles Involved 
in this Famous Case. Per copy, 25 cts.; 
doz., $2.00; 100, $15.00. 

HAS THEH NON-UNIONIST A MORAL RIGHT ~ 
TO WORK HOW, WHEN AND WHERE 
HE PLEASES?—By Frank K. Foster. Per 
copy,'.5 ets.; doz, 50° cts:; 100, $4:00. 

TRADE UNION EPIGRAMS. Some Reasons 
for the Faith That Is Within Us—By Wal- 
ter MacArthur, Per copy, 5 cts.; doz.,_5@ 
ets.; 100, $4.00. 

WHAT DOES LABOR WANT?—By Samuel 
Gompers; together with “The Philosphy 
of the Labor Movement,” ’by George E. 
McNeill. Per copy, 5c.; doz., 50c.; 100, $4. 

ORGANIZED LABOR; ITS STRUGGLES; ITS 
ENEMIES, AND FOOL FRIENDS—By 
Samuel’: Gompers. ._Per:copy,*5 “cts.;. dear 
50 ets.; 100, $4.00. 

THE “PHILOSOPHY OF THE LABOR MOV1E- 
MENT.’—By George E. MeNeill; together 
with “What Does Labor Want?’ by Sam-~ 
uel Gompers. a0zZ,,; "aU 
ets.; 100, $4.00: 

NO COMPULSORY ARBITRATION—By Sam- 
uel Gompers. Per copy,-5 cts.; doz., 50 cts.; 
100, $4.00. 

OPEN SHOP EDITORIALS—By Samuel Gom- 
pers. Per copy, 5 cts.; doz., 50 cts.; 100, $4. 

WHAT LABOR COULD DO—By John Swin- 
ton; with “Keonomie Conferences,’ by 
Wm. Salter, and a letter of Hon. Amos J. 
Cummins. Per copy, 5c.: doz., 50c.; 100, ' $4. 

THE SAFETY OF THE FUTURE BIS 
ORGANIZED LABOR—By Henry D. Lloyd, 
of Chicago. (In English or German.) Per 
copy, 5 cts: doz; 50 cts.: 100,> $4.00. 

UNIVERSAL EDUCA TION—By Senator Henry 
W. Blair. Per copy, 5c.; doz., 50c.; 1002$4. 

CONDITION OF WOMEN WORKERS—By Ida 
M. Van Bitten. Per copy, 5 cts.; doz.50 
ets.; 100, $4.00. 

WHY WE: UNITE. Per copy; 2 cts.5 d0z77aew 
Ctsic 100,> $i:25.0. 

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS Av & OFS 
CONVENTIONS. Per copy, 25 cts., d0z., 
$3.00; 100, $20.00. Bound in half leather 
rer volume, $2.00. Bound in silk cloth, per 
set, 1881-1911, $19.00. 

THE UNION LABEL; ITS HISTORY, Ane 
AIMS. Prize Essays, by Walter MacArthur, 
P, H. Shevlin, and Charles D. Hemming. 
Per copy, 5 ets.; doz, 50 ets.; 100, $3.00: 


Per copy, 5°.cis; 


SOME REASONS FOR CHINESE EXCLU- 
STON. Published December, 1901, by ithe 
American Federation of Labor, being a 


comprehensive review of the whole ques- 
tion. Per copy. 5 cts.: doz., 50 cts.; 100/594 
AN OPEN LETTER TO MINISTERS OF THE 
GOSPEL. Issued by the American Federa- 
tion of Labor. Per copy,5c.;doz., 50c.;100, $4. 


This is a fac-simile of the 


American Federation of Labor 
BADGE. It is of Rolled Gold, 
beautifully enameled in three ccl- 
ors—Red, Whiteand Blue. They 
are sold at 50 cents each, $5.60 
per dozen, or $38.00 per 100. 


REMEMBER! 
That Union Men Should Purchase Union-Made Goods. 
That Union Men Should Demand Unicn-Label Goods; and that 
““Whether you Work by the 
Work by the Day, 


Decreasing the Hours Increases the Pay.”’ 


Piece or 


LABOR AND REFORM LITERATURE FURNISHED AT PUBLISHER’S PRICE 


FRANK MORRISGN, Secretary. 
2410-12 M 


SAMUEL GOMPERS, Presi 


GIS V3 Way 


Sal 
Cy 88059. 
Address of Samuel Gompers, President American Federation of 
Labor, Before the Arbitration Conference, held at Chicago, Ill, 
eae 17, 1900, under Auspices of the National Civic Federation 


Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: Had it not been for the 
fact tea I was so busily engaged during the past few weeks, it would 
have afforded me extreme pleasure to have presented a prepared and 
well-digested paper. Inasmuch, however, as my life has been, and is, a 
very busy one, I shall be compelled to rely upon what I may be presump- 
tuous enough to call my knowledge and experience of the subjects before 
this conference, to express my ideas upon them and to submit them to 
your kindly consideration. There are a few matters that I have already 
written and which I shall read a little later. But I may be pardoned at 
this juncture if I refer to a few of the expressions which have been 
given vent to this afternoon, and of which I felt it my duty to take 
notice and to submit to your consideration now. I would say before 
doing so, however, that this afternoon a gentleman read a paper to us 
containing some statements to which I desire to take positive exception. 

When he had concluded his paper, walking through the aisle of the 
hall, I introduced myself to him and said that I expected to address the 
conference this evening and that I proposed to take exception to his re- 
marks. I wanted to advise him of it, so that no one might accuse me of 
a desire to say anything in his absence that I would not say if he were 
present. One of the things to which I took exception is, that as an officer 
of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad, he should undertake in 
this conference to present his side, the side of the railroad, in a strike 
which is still in progress, without a representative of the strikers being 
here to present their side of the controversy. (Applause.) It seemed 
to me that if the opportunity of this conference is to be taken advantage 
of for the presentation of the railroad’s side of this controversy, due 
notice might have been given to the representative of the Order of Rail- 
way Telegraphers, in order that he might be here to listen to what was 
said and refute it, if necessary. (Applause.) I am not prepared to say 
that what the gentleman said was untrue, but one story is very good un- - 
till the other side is told. 

One would imagine from the statements made that all the concilia- 
tion in the struggles of labor, as these terms are generally used, came 
from the side of the employers. Judging from his expressions one would 
imagine that the associations of capital have made overtures to refer to 
dis} nterested parties all the struggles and all the controversies and con- 
g tests that have arisen, but, in truth, where there has been one offer on the 

side of the employers, whether they be of an individual or of an associa- 
.tion of employers, there have been hundreds on the part of organized 
_¢labor. We have become so accustomed to hear our proffer of a concilia- 
Story policy met with the answer that there is nothing to arbitrate that it 
“sounds quite strange upon our ears when we hear that any employer is 
“willing to discuss the question at variance between us. (Applause.) I 
am not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing disposition on the 
= part of employers that a conciliatory policy should be pursued, and to 
. prevent hostilities, contentions, struggles and contests in the industrial 
field. 
I am willing to concede that progress has been made on these lines, 
and a larger and a continually growing number of employers endeavor 


4. 


to effect adjustments of disputes between them and their employes by a 
conciliatory policy. I want to say that it is the result of my observation, 
as it is the result of observation of any one who has or who may care 
to investigate it, that this changed policy is due wholly and entirely to 
the efforts of organized labor. (Applause.) And it is human nature. 
Men who possess all power in their dealings with pepple who possess 
absolutely no power, do not pursue a conciliatory policy. Conciliation 
between two parties having diverse interests is only pursued when they 
' have either equal power or nearly equal power, and until the workers, 
the wage workers, united and demonstrated to the employers as a rule, 
and as a class, that they were no longer willing to have their interests 
treated absolutely from the one standpoint of the interests of the em- 
ploying class. In other words, when the wage workers, once and for all, 
determined that they, too, must be taken into consideration in the matter 
of conducting the business of the country, then, and not until then, did 
the employers pursue a conciliatory policy. (Applause.) 

Yes. One here and there, imbued with the humanitarian purpose, 
would gladly give his sympathy—but usually silent for fear of offense to 
his fellow business men. Fear to lose caste; fear to lose business. That 
policy is being pursued now to a greater degree than ever before. But 
I think it comes with poor grace from a representative of a large rail- 
road company to come before this conférence and to attribute all the 
faults of an industrial dispute and inferentially all the faults of all in- 
dustrial disputes to the labor organizations. Our friend said this after- 
noon there is an effort to restrain capital, and there would be by this 
policy of compulsory arbitration. ‘There is no object to it,” he said. 
“It might mean confiscation, but 1f it did this, would you restrain capital 
or would you confiscate capital and not restrain labor?” First, I would ~ 
say in answer that we have no desire at all to restrain capital. That is, 
organized labor has not, and it would aid in resenting the attempt of pollt- 
ticians to interfere with industry. But even though society would at- 
tempt to interfere with or restrain capital, does it necessarily and logical- 
ly and humanely follow that the same rule should apply to labor? 

If labor were an inanimate object, then, perhaps, the analogy would 
hold; but inasmuch as you cannot_differentiate labor from the laborer, 
there is a whole vista of difference. The difference is that one is inani- 
mate, while the other is animate—human, living man. And we do not 
propose, by any process of reasoning, to permit, much less give, our con- 
sent, to accepting from the hands of our opponents, particularly oppo- 
nents who are so bitter and hostile in their declarations, as well as their 
actions, a proposition that would fetter us to a condition little less than 
slavery. (Applause.) Shall I refer to the black list and the refusal of 
employers and corporations generally to refuse recognition to the associ- 
ated efforts of the workers? How is it possible that arbitration shall 
take place at all unless it be through the associated efforts of the wage 
workers? To- -day we heard a statement, made by a gentleman, undoubt- 
edly well meaning, who spoke of the “deplorable condition of affairs” 
and this “dread disease” of strikes. 

I admit that strikes ought to be avoided. I freely grant you that 
strikes are anything but pleasant incidents in the struggle of life; but 
I do imagine that there are some things more deplorable and that there 
are some diseases more dreadful than strikes. One would imagine that 
this nation has been completely ruined, that the people had become 


5 


dwarfed intellectually, had been stunted in their feelings, in their hu- 
manity, that their industry had been paralyzed and their commerce de- 
stroyed by strikes, when, as a matter of fact, out of the existence of this 
country, and we can scarcely count our national existence before the in- 
dependence of the United States, there is not in the history of the world 
a similar instance of the growth, of the marvelous expansion of industry 
and commerce, of manhood and independence, of humanity, of grandeur, 
of stature, of beautiful womanhood, as there is in these United States of 
America (applause), and all within a little less than a century and a 
quarter. True, there have been strikes, and we have been inconven- 
ienced by them, and there have been lockouts, and we have been sorely 
tried by them, but if we view the progress that has been made, surely 
there is nothing to warrant us in believing that the strikes and the lock- 
outs, much as they are to be deplored, have proven so disastrous to the 
people of our country that they should require such drastic measures as 
have been proposed. 

We strike. People in China do not strike. I wonder whether those 
who would try to prevent the workers from striking, or those who would 
punish the workers for striking, would like to change the condition from 
that which obtains in our country to that which obtains in China. If 
the absence of strikes was the measure of civilization, then China ought 
to stand at the head of the world. (Laughter and applause.) We have 
in the written history of struggles of the toiling masses of the wage- 
earners for a larger share in the produce of their toil. It was not always 
conducted upon the highly civilized plane of a strike. Strikes only occur 
in civilized countries. They are impossible where the people have not 
attained some degree of manhood and independence. Let me mention 
an incident which occurred not more than a year ago in a joint con- 
ference held between miners and mine operators for the adjustment of 
a scale of wages. It brings out a thought of those who believe that the 
employing class, as a rule, were those who first advocated conciliation. 
As you, know, since the first coal miners’ strike of 1897, the miners and 
the operators meet in annual session for the purpose ‘of adopting the 
scales and other conditions of labor which shall operate for the ensuing 
year. They meet first separately, and then after in a joint convention. 
Just about parting, to discuss a provision of the agreement, one of the 
operators, who had been always an opponent to the joint conferences and 
joint agreements, but a very late convert to that idea, arose and delivered 
himself of an address, something after this fashion: “Mr. Chairman 
and Gentlemen: JI want to say to you that I am thoroughly convinced 
that we are doing splendid work; that we have been brought together, 
the operators and miners,” and, turning to the operators, he then said: 
“You operators, you are missionaries in this great work. Yes, sir, I am 
a missionary in this work.” ‘Then, turning to the miners, he said: “And 
you miners, you are missionaries; yes, missionaries. You are a mission- 
ary, I am a missionary,” and was about to walk out, when one of the 
miners, who had steadily and for years been fighting for these joint 
conferences, and knew the continued opposition of this missionary, arose 
and said: “Mr. Chairman, did I understand Mr. Blank to say that he 
was’a missionary?’ ‘The chairman answered him: “Yes, sir, that is 
what he said, ‘that he was a missionary.’ ” “Well, sir, if Mr. Blank is a 
missionary, I only wish I were a cannibal, and I would eat him within 
the next five minutes.” (Laughter.) 


i 
em 


6 

There has been so much said, and it has been said so often}; in favor 
of arbitration, and particularly conciliation, between the employer and 
the employed, that little need be said by me, particularly at such a time, 
in favor of such a project, and I shall, therefore, direct the remainder 
of my remarks to the negative upon the proposition of so-called com- 
pulsory arbitration. And I should say that my remarks upon this point 
are largely remarks which I submitted to the convention recently held in 
Louisville, of the American Federation of Labor, unanimously endorsed, 
and largely too, the report of which a committee submitted to the con- 
vention, and also affirmed unanimously. In common with the general 
trend of organized labor to prevent strikes and lockouts whenever and 
wherever possible, a sentiment for arbitration has been awakened among 
the people of our country. There are some, however, who, playing upon 
the credulity of the uninformed, seek to divert the principle of arbitra- 
tion into a coercive policy of so-called compulsory arbitration. In other 
words, the creation by States, or by the nation of boards or courts, with 
power to hear and determine each case in dispute between the workers 
and their employers, to make awards and, if necessary, to invoke the 
power of the Government to enforce the awards. Observers have for 
years noted that those inclined to this policy have devised many schemes 
to deny the workers the right to quit their employments, and the scheme 
of so-called compulsory arbitration is the latest design of the well-in- 
tentioned but uninformed, as well as the faddist and schemers. 

Our movement seeks, and has to a certain extent secured, a dimi- 
nution in the number of strikes, particularly among the best organized| 
In fact, the number and extent of strikes can be accurately gauged by the 
power, extent and financial resources of an organization in any trade or 
calling. The number of strikes rises with lack of or weakness in organi- 
zation, and diminishes with the extent and power of the trades union 
movement. ‘Through more compact and better equipped trades unions 
have come joint agreements and conciliations between workmen and as- 
sociated employers, and only when conciliation has failed has it been 
necessary to resort to arbitration, and then the only successful arbitra- 
tion was arbitration voluntarily entered into, resulting in awards volun- 
tarily obeyed. 

Organized labor cannot by attempted secrecy evade the provisions 
of an award reached by compulsory arbitration and determine upon a 
strike. By reason of our large numbers every act would be an open 
and public act known to all, while, on the other hand, an employer, or an 
association of employers, could easily evade the provisions of such a law 
or award by the modern process of enforcing a lockout; that is, to un- 
dertake a “reorganization” of their employes. 

It is submitted that the very terms, arbitration and compulsory, 
stand in direct opposition to each other. Arbitration implies the volun- 
tary action of two parties of diverse interests submitting to disinterested 
parties the question in dispute, or likely to come in dispute. 

. Compulsion, by any process, and particuiarly by the powers of gov- 
ernment, is repugnant to the principle as well as to the policy of arbitra- 
tion. If organized labor should fail to appreciate the danger involved 
in the proposed schemes of so-called compulsory arbitration, and consent 
to the enactment of a law providing for its enforcement, there would be 
introduced the denial of the right of the workers to strike in defense of 
their interests and the enforcement by the Government of specific and 


T 

personal service and labor. In other words, under a law based upon com- 
pulsory arbitration, if an award were made against labor, no matter 
how unfair or how unjust, and brought about by any means, no matter 
how questionable, we would be compelled to work, or to suffer the stated 
penalty, which might be either mulcting in damages or going to jail, 
not one scintilla of distinction, not one jot removed from slavery. 

It is strange how much men desire to compel other men to do by 
law. What we aim to achieve is freedom through organization. (Ap- 
plause. ) 

Arbitration is only possible when voluntary. It never can be suc- 
cessfully carried out unless the parties to a dispute or controversy are 
equals, or nearly equals, in power to protect or defend themselves, or to 
inflict injury upon the other party. The more thoroughly the workers 
are organized in their local and national unions, and federated by com- 
mon bond, policy and polity, the better shall we be able to avert strikes 
and lockouts, to secure conciliation, and, if necessary, arbitration, but it 
must be voluntary arbitration or there shall be no arbitration at all—vol- 
untary in obedience to the award as well as voluntarily entered into. 

It 1s our aim to avoid strikes, but I trust that the day will never 
come when the workers of our country will have so far lost their man- 
hood and independence as to surrender their right to strike or refuse to 
strike. (Applause.) We seek to prevent strikes, but we realize that the 
best means by which they can be averted is to be the better prepared for 
them. We endeavor to prevent strikes, but there are some conditions far 
worse than strikes, and among them is a demoralized, degraded and de- 
based manhood. Lest our attitude be misconstrued, we emphatically, and 
without ambiguity, declare our position. The right to quit work at any 
time, and for any reason sufficient to the workman himself, is the con- 
crete expression of individual liberty. Liberty has been defined as the 
right to freely move from place to place. Hence any curtailment of this 
right, by and through law, or by and through contract enforced by law, 
is, in fact, a negation of liberty and a return to serfdom. 

The industrial conciliation and arbitration law of New Zealand, the 
law creating and governing the Indiana Labor Commission and Arbitra- 
tion Board, copied from the laws of 1897 and issued by the Indiana 
Commissioners, and the arbitration law of Illinois, as well as an act con- 
cerning carriers engaged in interstate commerce and other employes, ap- 
proved June 1, 1898, along with other information from this and Euro- 
pean countries, show that the kernel of all this species of legislation is a 
desire to prevent strikes by punishing the strikers. (Applause.) Our 
existing form of society is unquestionably based upon manufacture, com- 
merce and transportation, and anything that disturbs the industries is 
resented, and means are sought to prevent a recurrence and to clothe it 
in such a garb that public opinion will accept it and permit its execution. 

Dealing with this matter more specifically, we find that the New 
Zealand law provides for a Board of Conciliation, with power to use 
their best efforts in bringing the contending parties together and in 
causing them to make some agreement. This failing, it goes, upon the 
demand of one of the contending parties, hefore the Industrial Court, 
which has the power, as any other court, to hear and determine, and the 
award or sentence is enforced by the State in the usual way, by fine or 
imprisonment, or both, the only distinction being that the trial by jury 
_is dispensed with and an appeal denied, The only relieving feature about 


. 8 

this law is that individuals cannot claim its protection. Men must volun- 
tarily enter into a labor union or an association in order to come under 
its provisions. ‘The Industrial Courts of France are, as I understand it, 
organized much in the same way. The bill to prevent strikes, which was 
introduced in the German Reichstag at the instance of the Government, 
had the same underlying motive, and practically the same way, of attain- 
ing this purpose. In the law adopted by the Hungarian Diet—we again 
meet the same purpose to prevent strikes by punishing the strikers. The 
question of extending the master and servant laws of Sweden to the in- 
dustrial workers of that country was under discussion in the Swedish 
Ricksdag, and was for some time fiercely combatted by the lovers of lib- 
erty of that country, but it was finally adopted and the other day a strike 
on the street cars in Stockholm was suppressed by sending several of the 
strikers to prison for long terms. 


Coming now to our own country, we find that a bill was introduced 


in Congress which would admit of every train being made a mail train, 
and which, under the Postal Laws, would have subjected the strikers in 
railroad transportation to imprisonment for delaying the mails. Through 
the efforts of the railroad brotherhoods and the American Federation of 
Labor the bill failed. Then followed the introduction of the Olney arbi- 
tration bill, which provided for arbitration, voluntary in submission, or 
in its initiatory stages, but with compulsory obedience to the award; that 
is, the award was to be enforced by a direct penalty for,the individual 
violating the same. The Indiana law has the following provisions: 

“An agreement to enter into arbitration under this act, shall be in 
writing, and shall state the issue to be submitted and decided, and shall 
have the effect of an agreement by the parties to abide by and perform 
the award.” 

And Section 10, page 133, reads as follows: 

“The clerk of the Circuit Court shall record the papers delivered to 
him as directed in the last preceding section, in the order book of the 
Circuit Court. Any person who was a party to the arbitration proceed: 
ings may present to the Circuit Court of the county in which the hearing 
was had, or the judge thereof, in vacation, a verified petition referring 
to the proceedings and the record of them in the order book and show- 
ing that said award has not been complied with, stating by whom and 
in what respect it has been disobeyed. And, thereupon, the court or 
judge thereof, in vacation, shall grant a rule against the party or parties 
so charged, to show cause within five days why said award has not been 
obeyed, “which shall be served by the sheriff as other process. Upon re- 
turn made to the rule, the judge, or court, if in session, shall hear and 
determine the questions presented, and make such order or orders direct 
to the parties before him in personam, as shall give just effect to the 
award. Disobedience by any party to such proceedings of any order so 
made, shall be deemed a contempt of court and may be punished accord- 
ingly. But such punishment shall not extend to imprisonment except 
in case of willful and contumacious disobedience. In all proceedings un- 
der this section the award shall be regarded as presumptively binding 

upon the employer and all employes who were parties to the controversy 
submitted to arbitration, which presumption shall be overcome only by 
proof of dissent from the submission delivered to the arbitrators, or one 
of them, in writing before the commencement of the hearing.” 

It will be observed that this may be called voluntary arbitration, be- 


a = 
ee 


9 


cause it is voluntarily entered into. The parties agree from the very 
beginning that if they, for some reason sufficient to themselves, should 
decline to abide by and perform the award, they are willing that the judge 
alone, without any jury and without any limit as to time may send them 
to prison until they shall consent to perform the labor which the award 
enjoins upon them. The thought underlying this law is that the in- 
dividual man may alienate his right to liberty, and it is, therefore, de- 
structive of the fundamental principle of the Republic of the United 
States. It is equally dangerous with the New Zealand law, the Hun- 
garian statute or the proposed law of Germany, because it aims at tying 
the worker to the mine, the factory or the means of transportation upon 
which he works, in the same way in which the agricultural worker, dur- 
ing the feudal era, was tied to the soil. I am not singling out the In- 
diana law as different from all the rest or worse than the rest. I quote it 
simply because it is before us. Paragraph five of the Illinois law reads 
as follows: 

“In the event of a failure to abide by the decision of said board in 
any case in which both employer and employes shall have joined in the 
application, any person or persons aggrieved thereby may file with the 
clerk of the Circuit Court or the County Court of the county in which 
the offending party resides, or in the case of an employer in the county 
in which the place of employment is located, a duly authenticated copy of 
such decision, accompanied by a verified petition reciting the fact that 
such decision has not been complied with, and stating by whom and in 
what respect it has been disregarded. Thereupon the Circuit Court or 
the County Court, as the case may be, or the judge thereof, if in vaca- 
tion, shall grant a rule against the party or parties so charged, to show 
cause within ten days why such decision has not been complied with, 
which shall be served by the sheriff as other process. Upon return made 
to the rule, the court or the judge thereof, if in vacation, shall hear and 
determine the questions presented, and to secure a compliance with such 
decision, may punish the offending party or parties for contempt, but 
such punishment shall in no case extend to imprisonment.” 

The difference between this section and the one quoted from the 
law of Indiana, aside from the final proviso, the value of which is doubt- 
ful, is in phraseology only; any further comment is, therefore, unneces- 
sary. 

The Manufacturers’ Association of the South, meeting during the 
last year, decided to submit to the Legislature of each of the Southern 
States a law providing for term contracts, the violation of which would 
be PUNISHED AS A FELONY, and that they did this with the specific 
purpose of preventing strikes and of inviting Northern capital. When 
their attention was called to the fact that they were as yet not “bothered” 
by labor organizations, they answered: “That’s true, and that’s just 
the reason why we decided to take steps to prevent the formation of any 
and to stop strikes in the most effective manner.” 

All these schemes are reactionary in their character. They mean 
simply that the employers of to-day find themselves in a somewhat simi- 
lar position to the employers of England after the “black death.” The 
King issued a proclamation at that time that any one who would refuse 
to continue to work for the wages usually paid in a specified year of the 
King’s reign, would by the State be compelled to labor at such wages, 
regardless of any wishes that he or she might have. The English Par- 


10 
liament later enacted this into a statute known as the “Statute of La- 
borers,” and re-enacted it periodically with ever-increasing penalties, 
until Henry VIII, finding himself in need of funds, confiscated the 
Guild funds, and by impoverishing the organizations of labor at that 
time succeeded in enforcing the statute of laborers from that time on. 

That law was every bit as fair upon its face as the laws of New 
Zealand, Indiana, Illinois, or any other of those laws with which I have 
any acquaintance, because it provided that the judges sitting in quarter 
sessions should hear both sides and then determine upon a “fair wage” 
for the year. Readers of “Six Centuries of Work and Wages,” by 
Thorald Rogers, professor at the University of Oxford, will know the 
results to the English working people. Their daily hours of labor were 
increased, their wages reduced, until it was necessary to enact the “poor 
laws,” and to quarter the worker upon the occupier, because he was con- 
tinually being robbed by the employer. It has been stated by others 
that this law reduced the stature of the British workers by about two 
inches, and that the poverty—the real, dire poverty—to be found in the 
back alleys of English cities, even to this day, is largely caused by that 
species of legislation. 

The thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 
forbidding slavery or involuntary servitude, may perhaps be quoted to 
show that in our country no one can be compelled to work against his 
or her will, and that, therefore, there is no serious danger-to individual 
liberty in the so-called “voluntary arbitration” laws. 

In order that the working people and the true friends of freedom 
may make no mistake on this question, I quote from the decision of the 
Supreme Court of the United States in Robert Robertson et al. vs. 
Barry Baldwin, January 25, 1897, and beg to remind them that this is 
the only construction of the thirteenth amendment and the term in- 
voluntary servitude, so far as I know, ever given by the court. It reads 
as follows: 

“The question whether section 4598 and 4599 conflict with the 
thirteenth amendment, forbidding slavery and involuntary servitude, 
depends upon the construction to be given the term ‘involuntary servi- 
tude.’ Does the epithet ‘involuntary’ attach to the word ‘servitude’ 
continuously and make illegal any service which becomes involuntary at 
any time during its existence, or does it attach only at the inception 
of the servitude and characterize it as unlawful, because unlawfully en- 
tered into? If the former be the true construction, then no one, not even 
a soldier, sailor or apprentice, can surrender his liberty even for a day, 
and the soldier may desert his regiment upon the eve of battle or the 
sailor at intermediate port or landing. or even in a storm at sea, provided 
only he can find means of escaping to another vessel. If the latter, then 
an individual may, for a valuable consideration, contract for the sur- 
render of his personal liberty for a definite time and for a recognized pur- 
pose, and subordinate his going and coming to the will of another dur- 
ing the continuance of the contract. Not that all such contracts would 
be lawful, but that a servitude which was knowingly and willingly enter- 
ed into could not be termed involuntary. Thus, if one should agree, for 
a yearly wage, to serve another in a particular capacity during his life, 
and never to teave his estate without his consent, the contract might not 
be enforcible for the want of a legal remedy, or might be void upon 
grounds of public policy. But the servitude could not be properly term- 


11 


ed involuntary. Such agreements for a limited personal servitude at 
one time were very common in England, and by statute of June 17, 1823 
(4 Geo. IV, chap. 34, sec. 3), it was enacted that if any servant in hus- 
bandry, or any artificer, calico printer, hands craftman, miner, collier, 
keelman, pitman, glassman, potter, laborer or other person should con- 
tract to serve another for a definite time, and should desert such service 
during the term of the contract, he was made liable to a criminal punish- 
ment. ‘The breach of a contract for personal service has not, however, 
been recognized in this country as involving a liability to criminal pun- 
ishment, except in the cases of soldiers, sailors, and possibly some others, 
nor would public opinion tolerate a statute to that effect.” 

The only dissent from this construction comes from Justice Harlan, 
who, in his dissenting opinion, sends out to the country a warning 
against the awful consequences logically following from this decision 
in the following words: 

“In considering this case it 1s our duty to look at the consequences 
of any decision that may be rendered. We cannot avoid this duty by 
saying that it will be time enough to consider supposed cases when they 
arise. When such supposed cases do arise, those who seek judicial sup- 
port for extraordinary remedies that encroach upon the liberties of free- 
men will, of course, refer to the principles announced in previous ad- 
judications and demand their application to the particular case in hand. 

“It is, therefore, entirely appropriate to inquire as to the neces- 
sary results of the sanction given by this court to the statute here in 
question. If Congress, under its power to regulate commerce with for- 
eign nations and among the several States, can authorize the arrest of a 
seaman who engaged to serve upon a private vessel, and compel him 
by force to return to the vessel and remain during the term for which he 
engaged, a similar rule may be prescribed as to employes upon railroads 
and steamboats engaged in commerce among the States. Even if it 
were conceded—a concession to be made only for argument’s sake—that 
it could be made a criminal offense, punishable by fine or imprisonment, 
or both, for such employes to quit their employment before the expira- 
tion of the term for which they agreed to serve, it would not follow that 
they could be compelled, against their will and in advance of trial and 
conviction, to continue in such service. But the decision to-day logically 
leads to the conclusion that such a power exists in Congress. Again, as 
the Legislatures of the States have all legislative power not prohibited to 
them, while Congress can only exercise certain enumerated powers for 
accomplishing specified objects, why may not the States under the prin- 
ciples this day announced, compel all employes of railroads engaged in 
domestic commerce, and all domestic servants, and all employes in pri- 
vate establishments, within their respective limits, to remain with their 
employers during the terms for which they were severally engaged, un- 
der the penalty of being arrested by some sheriff or constable and for- 
cibly returned to the service of their employers? The mere statement 
of these matters is sufficient to indicate the scope of the decision this day 
rendered.” 

That is, in part, my friends, the dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan. 

I believe that the reason why many well-meaning, honest and con- 
scientious men and women favor some form of compulsory arbitra- 
tion arises from the fact that their attention has been called to the refusal 
to arbitrate on the part of some large corporations or other employers 


12 


of labor. It is felt that the rest of the public are made innocent sufferers 
and victims, and that there ought to be some way to give to the public 
the facts, in order that it might be known who is actually to blame. 
Whenever they are asked: ‘Do you want to send a man or a woman to 
jail for quitting work?” they immediately answer, “No, no.” What 
they seem to desire is that these corporations or employers who refuse 
to arbitrate shall in some way be compelled to do so. This is manifestly 
impossible. Laws that are “jug handled,” even if possible of enactment 
and execution, invariably have the handle so placed that the large cor- 
porations and employers of labor keep hold of the handle. Conimissions, 
with power to examine and report, would seem to be more in line with 
what is actually desired, but I would call attention to the fact that even 
these have in them a feature dangerous to liberty, because from them 
may come, and sometimes do come, reports which have a tendency to 
warp public opinion and prepare it for measures which, without such 
preparation, the public would unhesitatingly repudiate. 

If we want arbitration, and are earnest about it, then let those who 
have opposed our efforts heretofore encourage, rather than bitterly an- 
tagonize, the effort to organize the workers. (Applause.) The organi- 
zation of the wage earner is a first essential to a conciliatory policy being 
pursued, and when conciliation fails, that arbitration voluntary in its in- 
ception and voluntary in obedience to the award may take the place 
of strikes or lockouts. 

We recognize that peace is necessary to the carrying on of success- 
ful'industry and commerce. We know that peace cannot be secured un- 
less it is with the consent of the workers, who are realizing more than 
ever that their only hope to maintain their manhood to-day and to vouch- 
safe for their children the liberty which we now enjoy, lies in organized 
labor. (Applause. ) 

We shall insist upon the right to quit work whenever the conditions 
of the labor are irksome to us. If we should commit an error—which is 
likely—then we will be the sufferers more than any other or all other 
peoples, and we shall have learned by that error to avoid them in the 
future. But I repeat, with all the emphasis that I can command, that 
we shall always insist upon our right to quit work for any reason 
or for no reason at all. (Applause. ) 

After all, the employers as well as the laborers, if either make a 
mistake, will be called before the bar of that supreme authority—public 
opinion—before which monarchs and merchants, as well as laborers, are 
compelled to bow. ( Applause.) 

Conscious that we are right in our movement to secure better condi- 
tions for the workers; conscious that we are entitled to it, to a continual 
larger share of the ever-increasing production and the productivity of 
the laborer, we shall continue the “struggle for better homes and better 
surroundings. We want your co-operation to attain those ends. We 
want the good will and the co-operation of all; but 1f that is withheld 
from us, we shall conclude to go on organizing and struggling for that 
coal in spite of the opposition. ( Applause.) 

“Beware 
Of entrance to a quarrel; but being in, 
Bear’t that the opposed may beware of thee.” 
—Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 2. 
“Tt is something not yet fully understood how perfectly safe free- 


dom is.” S. G. 


ie a“ wal is ae 
, eo4 cs ar: A 
Pali we i Db 
ie 


{ 
Lae oS 
Y MAT, ‘ 


